remember_rule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the rule is 'durable' (persistent) and 'repository-specific' (scoped), which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects such as overwriting behavior, return values, or whether the rule is immediately active. For a write operation without annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Store a durable repository-specific rule or convention') and immediately gives the usage condition. It is concise, clear, and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and when to use it, it omits crucial details needed for correct invocation: the meanings of the parameters, the effect of optional fields like tags and importance, and any interaction with the context_file. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter semantics. Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage for all parameters, and the tool description makes no mention of any parameter. The schema only provides names and types (rule, tags, importance, context_file) with no meaning. The description fails to explain what 'rule', 'tags', 'importance', or 'context_file' represent or how they affect behavior. This is a critical gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('store'), a concrete resource ('rule or convention'), and a scope ('repository-specific'). It also differentiates from siblings like list_memories and forget_memory by focusing on creation. The phrase 'durable' adds persistence context. This is a precise, non-tautological description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the agent should follow a project constraint in future sessions.' This is a clear contextual trigger. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like remember_correction or remember_decision, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.